Post Your Comment

11 Comments

Through use of Moore’s law allowing for better integration of silicon and smaller, less power hungry transistors, Intel hopes to be at power-parity with ARM (both idle and active) within the next 3 or so years - all while being significantly faster, at least for the next 5.

Yeah, yeah, and ARM doesn't benefit from Moore's Law?

Intel hopes to be where ARM SoCs (far more integrated that Mooretown) have been for several years ... in another three. Maybe. Intel will have the process on their side. That's about it.

In the meantime, given the excellent performance of the iPhone on a 90nm 412MHz ARM11 core (with 1GHz+ available, and multi-core as well with Cortex) I don't see any imminent desire for Apple to switch to these offerings for the iPhone and iPod Touch. I think the release of their SDK suggests this as well - sure, they could make everyone port their software in a mere three years ... or not.

I just don't think that even Moorestown++ will be anywhere near what Apple need - not integrated enough, not frugal enough. They're not going to make an iBrick (in comparison). Reply

Are ARM SOC's just now moving to 65nm? Intel can push because it has the fab capability and IP and talent and resources.

The iPhone being x86 means no more seperate Dev on two processor platforms, the iPhone will use the same progs as the desktop OS, no porting will be done, it will open up the handheld to all the companies already making OSX software, a "port" of any desktop app reasonably suited will be very very easy.

I wonder if Intel will allow a separate memory bus for the RAM, if so this would make it truly competitive, even a second DDR3 populated with SoDimm low latency high speed would do wonders for it. I am thinking of the HTPC and desktop markets of course (and the non-existent high performance hand held gaming market) Reply

Yeah, so by 2015 Intel plans on having this ready? Aren't they a little behind? Seems like IBM already has this plan rolling. The Cell processor already has multiple "children" cpus waiting for a controller CPU to tell them what to do. This is, in my opinion, the best way to design chips because no developer wants to waste time writing programs that take advantage of multiple thread capable CPUS - they rather the hardware figure it out. Its hard enough to use 2 out of 4 cores on a quad core now..imagine 32 cores!

I wish they would give us a socket on the motherboards for a GPU chip. Then they can do multi-core cpus and multi-core dedicated gpus with new ultra fast buses to link. Plus I don't want Intel completly taking over all chip making...that would at the least cut out NVDIA who doesn't make CPUs. They backed the PS3 though so they might help push the Cell. Reply

Yeah, so by 2015 Intel plans on having this ready? Aren't they a little behind? Seems like IBM already has this plan rolling. The Cell processor already has multiple "children" cpus waiting for a controller CPU to tell them what to do. This is, in my opinion, the best way to design chips because no developer wants to waste time writing programs that take advantage of multiple thread capable CPUS - they rather the hardware figure it out. Its hard enough to use 2 out of 4 cores on a quad core now..imagine 32 cores!

I wish they would give us a socket on the motherboards for a GPU chip. Then they can do multi-core cpus and multi-core dedicated gpus with new ultra fast buses to link. Plus I don't want Intel completly taking over all chip making...that would at the least cut out NVDIA who doesn't make CPUs. They backed the PS3 though so they might help push the Cell. Reply

Yeah, so by 2015 Intel plans on having this ready? Aren't they a little behind? Seems like IBM already has this plan rolling. The Cell processor already has multiple "children" cpus waiting for a controller CPU to tell them what to do. This is, in my opinion, the best way to design chips because no developer wants to waste time writing programs that take advantage of multiple thread capable CPUS - they rather the hardware figure it out. Its hard enough to use 2 out of 4 cores on a quad core now..imagine 32 cores!

I wish they would give us a socket on the motherboards for a GPU chip. Then they can do multi-core cpus and multi-core dedicated gpus with new ultra fast buses to link. Plus I don't want Intel completly taking over all chip making...that would at the least cut out NVDIA who doesn't make CPUs. They backed the PS3 though so they might help push the Cell. Reply